Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 33 (HP)

Dinesh Kumar v. State of H. P.

2025-01-03

VIRENDER SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr. P.C..) for quashing of FIR No. 1 of 2023, dated 1.1.2023, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the FIR in question’), registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 452, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’), and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, with Police Station, Bangana, District Una, as well as, the proceedings resultant thereto, stated to be pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’). 2. Relief, as claimed for, has been sought on the ground that the matter has been compromised between the petitioners and respondents No. 2 to 6, as they want to live in peace and harmony, in future. 3. According to the petitioners, the terms and conditions of the compromise have been reduced into writing, which have been annexed with the petition, as Annexure P-2. 4. On all these submissions, a prayer to allow the present petition, by quashing the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, has been made. 5. When put to notice, respondent No. 1 has filed status report, disclosing therein the factual position, about the manner, in which, the FIR in question has been registered and criminal machinery swung into motion. 6. It is the further case of respondent-State that after completion of investigation, report under Section 173(2) of Cr. P.C. has been filed, which is pending adjudication before the learned trial Court. 7. On 5.7.2024, the person, who had put criminal machinery into motion, by making statement under Section 154 Cr. P.C., before the Police, has appeared in Court and has made a statement, on oath, about the manner, in which, he has lodged the FIR in question and factum of the compromise, which has been effected, between the parties, in order to maintain cordial relations between them. 8. Complainant-respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter and has stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 9. 8. Complainant-respondent No. 2, in unequivocal terms, has deposed that he does not want to proceed further with the matter and has stated that he has no objection, in case, the present petition is allowed and the FIR in question and the proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 9. Similar type of statements has also been made by the petitioners, and respondents No. 3 to 5. 10. Heard. 11. Complainant/respondent No. 2 has categorically stated, in his statement, on oath, that the compromise has been effected between the parties, in order to maintain cordial relations, between them. 12. In view of the compromise deed, Annexure P-2, which bears the signatures of petitioners and respondents No. 2 to 5, respondent No. 2 does not want to proceed further with the case and has specifically stated that he has no objection, in case, the FIR in question, as well as, proceedings resultant thereto, pending before the learned trial Court, are quashed and the present petition is allowed. 13. Moreover, when, the parties have settled the dispute with regard to FIR in question, then the compromise, which has been entered into between the parties, annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2, should be honoured by this Court, as no useful purpose would be served, by keeping the proceedings alive. 14. The primary purpose of law is to maintain peace in the society and when, the parties to the lis, i.e. petitioners and respondents No. 2 to 5, have buried their disputes and compromised the matter, then, the continuation of the criminal proceedings, arising out of FIR in question, lodged by respondent No. 2, would certainly amount to abuse of the process of law. 15. Acceptance of the compromise will also save the precious judicial time of the learned trial Court, as, the learned trial Court will be in a position to devote such time, for deciding some other serious disputes, pending before it. 16. Considering all these facts, the present petition is allowed and FIR in question, as well as, proceedings consequent thereto, pending adjudication before the learned trial Court, are quashed. 17. The statements, so recorded and the compromise, Annexure P-2, be read as part of the judgment. 18. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.